Temporal Resolvability of Stimulus

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 748)

Abstract

If the time spacing between two consecutive, perceptually significant kinesthetic force stimuli is less than the minimum time spacing (temporal resolution \(T_r\)) required in perceiving the jump discontinuity, then the second force stimulus will not be perceived even if it is well above the just noticeable difference. Hence, there is no need to transmit the second force sample to the operator. Thus, for haptic transmission in a teleoperation, the temporal resolution \(T_r\) needs also to be considered while effecting perceptually adaptive sampling. In this chapter, we estimate the temporal resolution \(T_r\) for the kinesthetic stimulus. For that purpose, we define an experimental setup where a user is subjected to a specific type of kinesthetic force stimulus. The force stimulus has two perceptually significant consecutive jumps separated by a variable time spacing. The user is asked to respond whenever she can perceive the discontinuity between the jumps by pressing a button of the stylus. If for a particular time spacing, the jump discontinuity is perceived, the user response is labeled as 1, and −1 otherwise. In this way, we record the labeled haptic responses for several users. In order to estimate the temporal resolution \(T_r\), we use a classical psychometric approach. It is observed that \(T_r\) lies between 17 and 37 ms for different users. Further, we also study how the physical fatigue (possibly including the effect of boredom) of muscles affects the temporal resolvability of a human operator in perceiving the jump discontinuity. It is observed that the resolvability in perceiving the jump discontinuity decreases by about \(30\%\) due to the fatigue. Hence, the fatigue does affect the temporal resolvability significantly. In order to alleviate this problem during teleoperation, it is recommended that the robot should be slowed down accordingly if a task is to be carried out over a longer period.

References

  1. Brooks TL (1990) Telerobotic response requirements. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 1990, IEEE, pp 113–120Google Scholar
  2. Durlach NI, Mavor AS, et al (1994) Virtual reality: scientific and technological challenges. National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Fogel LJ (1963) Biotechnology: concepts and applications. Prentice-Hall Englewood, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Hale KS, Stanney KM (2002) Handbook of virtual environments: design, implementation, and applications. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Klein SA (2001) Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: a commentary. Percept Psychophys 63(8):1421–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sanders MS, McCormick EJ (1987) Human factors in engineering and design. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  7. Sheridan T, Verplank W (1978) Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators, man-machine systems labGoogle Scholar
  8. Shimoga KB (1993) A survey of perceptual feedback issues in dexterous telemanipulation. ii. Finger touch feedback. In: Virtual reality annual international symposium, 1993, IEEE, pp 271–279Google Scholar
  9. Simpson WA (1988) The method of constant stimuli is efficient. Percept Psychophys 44(5):433–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tan HZ, Srinivasan MA, Eberman B, Cheng B (1994) Human factors for the design of force-reflecting haptic interfaces. Dyn Syst Contr 55(1):353–359Google Scholar
  11. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63(8):1293–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Zchaluk K, Foster DH (2009) Model-free estimation of the psychometric function. Attention Percep Psychophys 71(6):1414–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations